Teleological suspension of the ethical?

[Verbum_Caro]

No that I can see or imagine.

Thomas,

I had this in mind:

Reply to Objection 2. As the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:13), “God continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself.” But He would deny Himself if He were to do away with the very order of His own justice, since He is justice itself. Wherefore God cannot dispense a man so that it be lawful for him not to direct himself to God, or not to be subject to His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one another.

VC

 

[ThomasToo]

Thomas,

I had this in mind: ‘Reply to Objection 2. As the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:13), “God continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself.” But He would deny Himself if He were to do away with the very order of His own justice, since He is justice itself. Wherefore God cannot dispense a man so that it be lawful for him not to direct himself to God, or not to be subject to His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one another.’
VC

But I don’t see how that can work. I suppose the theology I’m assuming for this discussion is flawed (though it’s the only one I could ever comprehend) in that I suppose that I’m asserting a God externally related to the world. But I don’t quite see how the situation reported above is possible; I can understand God as giver of an objective law (the good exists and God keeps that in mind while giving the law) or God as creator of a subjective law (the good only exists insofar as God says it does) but commingling the notion of Godliness and goodness seems–at best–puzzling.

 

[Leela]

its even simpler than that.

what G-d says is good, is good. what G-d says is evil, is evil.

G-d doesnt change, and it doesnt have anything to do with ‘eternal damnation.’

people make this much more complicated than it need be.

Few people are satisfied with divine command theory. I don’t even think that that is the Catholic answer to this question. Under divine command theory most of us will still wonder, is what God commands good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

Either horn of the dilemma is problematic. If what is good is so merely because God commands it, then good and bad a merely arbitrary designations. If God commands something BECAUSE it is good, then God must be appealing to some standard for goodness which is external to God. We ought to then be able to appeal directly to that standard and “cut out the middle man.”

Believers and nonbelievers alike generally agree that moral concerns are concerns for the wellbeing of sentient creatures and not merely arbitrary divine decrees. With such a view of morality it is possible to say that there are true and false things to be asserted about what really does contribute to wellbeing. There is nothing arbitrary about morality. Humans can have knowledge when it comes to morals and this knowledge is not rooted in what pleases or displeases a deity but rather in what makes our lives better or worse–what promotes happiness and frees us from unnecessary suffering. We then don’t gain access to such knowledge only through divine revelation (if at all) but also through better understanding the causes and conditions that facilitate human happiness.

In other words we can study morals the way that we try to study anything else. For example, we certainly didn’t learn that it is not a good idea to beat our children from the Bible. In fact, the Bible encourages us to do just that. We learned it from psychological research on the consequences of beating our children as compared to those of using other means to teach our children. We simply know much more about morality than people did thousands of years ago just as we know much more about pretty much everything else.

Best,
Leela

 

[ThomasToo]

Leela, any thoughts on what VC suggested?
ST I-II:

As the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:13), “God continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself.” But He would deny Himself if He were to do away with the very order of His own justice, since He is justice itself. Wherefore God cannot dispense a man so that it be lawful for him not to direct himself to God, or not to be subject to His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one another.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thomas,

Maybe that is where you will find an answer to your question then, or at least it might produce some light as you continue probing it. I suppose you could start from the beginning of the Summa Theologica (if you haven’t read it already) with an eye on how God relates to the good, and how God and the good relates to created things, especially rational creatures.

VC

 

[ThomasToo]

Thomas,

Maybe that is where you will find an answer to your question then, or at least it might produce some light as you continue probing it. I suppose you could start from the beginning of the Summa Theologica (if you haven’t read it already) with an eye on how God relates to the good, and how God and the good relates to created things, especially rational creatures.

VC

A God as you suggested seems deeply strange to me and, frankly, strains credulity. I have the Summa on my shelf (all 18 shelf-inches of it); I have not read it covers to covers (5 volumes) but I have read decent stretches of it (mostly from I-II) and frankly, aside from reference work I doubt I will read all of it. An interesting answer to be sure and certainly far from the one Kierkegaard put forth.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thomas,

If you have the time and even the slightest inclination I recommend that you take a look at the first few questions of the First Part. It might give be useful to you.

Maybe St. Thomas’ De Malo, as well?

VC

 

[ThomasToo]

Thomas,

If you have the time and even the slightest inclination I recommend that you take a look at the first few questions of the First Part. It might give be useful to you.

Maybe St. Thomas’ De Malo, as well?

VC

That much I have read and I’ve never found it terribly convincing. Disagreeing with I-I, 2 (which is not applicable to this question and I understand not allowed on the forum) I have a hard time taking much from the rest of the section–for me it is on par with trying to identify the china pattern on Russell’s teapot.

I-I, 6, 4, seems to speak to our question however:

sed contraAll things are good, inasmuch as they have being. But they are not called beings through the divine being, but through their own being; therefore all things are not good by the divine goodness, but by their own goodness.
I answer that,… Everything is therefore called good from the divine goodness, as from the first exemplary effective and final principle of all goodness. Nevertheless, everything is called good by reason of the similitude of the divine goodness belonging to it, which is formally its own goodness, whereby it is denominated good. And so of all things there is one goodness, and yet many goodnesses.

That’s the other reason I don’t read much Aquinas, it’s as difficult to read as if it were still in Latin. If there can be said to be such a thing as divine goodness then it seems the first of our two options applies (good is ontologically prior to God) or perhaps I’m having linguistic issues.

 

[tonyrey]

Few people are satisfied with divine command theory. I don’t even think that that is the Catholic answer to this question. Under divine command theory most of us will still wonder, is what God commands good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

Either horn of the dilemma is problematic. If what is good is so merely because God commands it, then good and bad a merely arbitrary designations. If God commands something BECAUSE it is good, then God must be appealing to **some standard for goodness which is external to God. ** We ought to then be able to appeal directly to that standard and “cut out the middle man.”

Leela, why does the standard for goodness have to be external to God? If God is good it is a divine attribute. The dilemma, in my view, is false. It is based on an arbitrary distinction between God and goodness. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love all converge in one Supreme Reality…

Believers and nonbelievers alike generally agree that moral concerns are concerns for the wellbeing of sentient creatures and not merely arbitrary divine decrees. With such a view of morality it is possible to say that there are true and false things to be asserted about what really does contribute to wellbeing. There is nothing arbitrary about morality.

Absolutely true!

Humans can have knowledge when it comes to morals and this knowledge is not rooted in what pleases or displeases a deity but rather in what makes our lives better or worse–what promotes happiness and frees us from unnecessary suffering.

Again there is an arbitrary distinction between what pleases God and what is good for His children. Having created us it is unthinkable that He would not want us to be happy.

We then don’t gain access to such knowledge only through divine revelation (if at all) but also through better understanding the causes and conditions that facilitate human happiness.

Why not both? They are not mutually exclusive…

In other words we can study morals the way that we try to study anything else.

Did the Golden Rule emerge from secular morality?

For example, we certainly didn’t learn that it is not a good idea to beat our children from the Bible.

What about the teaching of Jesus regarding children?

In fact, the Bible encourages us to do just that.

Please cite a reference from the New Testament…

We learned it from psychological research on the consequences of beating our children as compared to those of using other means to teach our children.

Are you opposed to smacking a child?

We simply know much more about morality than people did thousands of years ago just as we know much more about pretty much everything else.

The state of the world indicates that in modern society there is a great deal of ignorance and even rejection of moral values. Scepticism does not end with the dismissal of religious beliefs. There is no logical stopping place on the slippery slope to nihilism… If there is tell me where it is!

 

[ThomasToo]

Leela, why does the standard for goodness have to be external to God? If God is good it is a divine attribute.

Why does the standard for redness need to be separated from my Porche? As I indicated above, I don’t quite understand this bundle of attributes and frankly cannot understand what such a being would even mean let alone how it is ontologically possible.

Did the Golden Rule emerge from secular morality?

Was there such a thing as secular morality two thousand years ago? Was there even such a thing as the notion of secularity two millennia ago? I don’t really think there was so you’re kind of on the advantage insofar as for the vast majority of human history there was no intellectually fulfilling alternative to a religious worldview (even when it caused substantial intellectual problems that are not germane here.

Please cite a reference from the New Testament…

I don’t think it’s fair to arbitrarily bind Leela to less than half the Bible. How about : ‘Withold not discipline from the child, for if you strike and punish him with the (reed-like) rod, he will not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell’ (Proverbs 23:13-14) or ‘foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him’ (Proverbs 22:15) or ‘the rod and reproof give wisdom’ (Proverbs 29:15)?

Are you opposed to smacking a child?

Unambiguously. I remember the fear and terror I felt every time my mother hit me and that’s not something I would ever perpetrate on another human soul.

The state of the world indicates that in modern society there is a great deal of ignorance and even rejection of moral values. Scepticism does not end with the dismissal of religious beliefs. There is no logical stopping place on the slippery slope to nihilism… If there is tell me where it is!

Descartes seems to have done alright doubting everything. Of course skepticism does not end with questioning religious beliefs; questions everything! [Now you say, ‘but why?’]

 

[Leela]

Leela, why does the standard for goodness have to be external to God? If God is good it is a divine attribute. The dilemma, in my view, is false. It is based on an arbitrary distinction between God and goodness. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love all converge in one Supreme Reality…

Even if you think it is essential to God’s nature that he only does what is in the interest of the well-being of sentient creatures the notion of “it is good to be concerned with the wellbeing of others” is not equivalent to the notion of God.

Did the Golden Rule emerge from secular morality?

It is my understanding that some articulation of the ethics of reciprocity seems to have emerged in just about every society we know about. It is a particularly rational approach to ethics that does not depend upon the divine revelation given to the Jews and the Christains.

What about the teaching of Jesus regarding children?
Please cite a reference from the New Testament…

As far as I know, all instructions concerning how we ought to discipline our children come from the Old Testament.

Are you opposed to smacking a child?

I don’t take a view that no one should ever hit a child under any circumstances, but I think there are generally better ways to raise our children than as how we are instructed by the Bible. I assume that most Catholics don’t follow the Biblical injunctions that ThomasToo has referenced. I don’t think that the reason Catholics tend to spare the rod these days is not because they have come to better understand the divine revelation of morality but because they better understand what is good and bad for children. We now know much better than the authors of the Bible about how to deal with our unruly youngsters to best help them become adults who are also concerned about the wellbeing of others.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Why does the standard for redness need to be separated from my Porche? As I indicated above, I don’t quite understand this bundle of attributes and frankly cannot understand what such a being would even mean let alone how it is ontologically possible.

 

[Leela]

ThomasToo;6509797:

You are very keen on the OT! Jesus came to perfect the Law…

Jesus apparently thought otherwise:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

 

[tonyrey]

Leela, why does the standard for goodness have to be external to God? If God is good it is a divine attribute. The dilemma, in my view, is false. It is based on an arbitrary distinction between God and goodness. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love all converge in one Supreme Reality…

That is true but “it is good to be concerned with the wellbeing of others” is hardly an adequate interpretation of reality. Why is it good?

Did the Golden Rule emerge from secular morality?

It is my understanding that some articulation of the ethics of reciprocity seems to have emerged in just about every society we know about. It is a particularly rational approach to ethics that does not depend upon the divine revelation given to the Jews and the Christians.

It depends on the religious consensus that human beings should treat one another as members of a family created by God.

What about the teaching of Jesus regarding children?
Please cite a reference from the New Testament…

As far as I know, all instructions concerning how we ought to discipline our children come from the Old Testament.

The following gives us a good indication of how we should treat them:

And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them. —Mark 10:13-16

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
—Matthew 18:1-6, 10-14

Fathers, do not **provoke **your children, lest they become discouraged. —Colossians 3:21

Are you opposed to smacking a child?

I don’t take a view that no one should ever hit a child under any circumstances, but I think there are generally better ways to raise our children than as how we are instructed by the Bible.

You mean “instructed by the Old Testament”.

I assume that most Catholics don’t follow the Biblical injunctions that ThomasToo has referenced. I don’t think that the reason Catholics tend to spare the rod these days is not because they have come to better understand the divine revelation of morality but because they better understand what is good and bad for children. We now know much better than the authors of the Bible about how to deal with our unruly youngsters to best help them become adults who are also concerned about the wellbeing of others.

I am sure the words of Jesus regarding love for children have not been nor ever will be superseded…

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;6509891:

Jesus apparently thought otherwise:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

You are mistaken. How do you reconcile “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” with His treatment of the woman caught in adultery? Fulfilment means perfecting the law - which was obviously primitive in some respects. Animal sacrifice is a good example of a custom that Jesus transformed into self-sacrifice - not necessarily by giving one’s life but by loving others.

 

[Leela]

Leela;6509936:

You are mistaken. How do you reconcile “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” with His treatment of the woman caught in adultery? Fulfilment means perfecting the law - which was obviously primitive in some respects. Animal sacrifice is a good example of a custom that Jesus transformed into self-sacrifice - not necessarily by giving one’s life but by loving others.

What you are pointing out is not a mistake I made but a contradiction in the Bible.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets…not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

The letter of the law says that we are required to sacrifice animals.

 

[ThomasToo]

Do you expect to understand fully the nature of Supreme Reality? Can you provide an alternative explanation?

I do. I can but to speculate on my answer is, I understand, sufficient reason for banning me from these forums so I will not.

Atheists and materialists existed more than two thousand years ago. Did they have no morality which they regarded as intellectually fulfilling?

They didn’t have areligious ways to address certain questions the answers to which are required for intellectual fulfillment (e.g. where did mankind come from?). As Leela pointed out, the Golden Rule is by no means unique to Judaism or Christianity and honestly, for shame if you need God to tell you to treat others as you would like to be treated. Kant came to (basically) the same conclusion without referring to God once.

You are very keen on the OT! Jesus came to perfect the Law…

I’m not at all keen on the OT, I think it’s a barbaric text but that’s where your Bible has advice for raising children. If there are New Testament passages that suggest another method of parenting I would be happy to see them because I am, at this moment, ignorant of their existence.

To hit is not to be equated with a gentle smack…

You never said gentle, you asked ‘are you opposed to smacking a child?’ and I said no. I think there are healthier ways to handle disciplinary issues than violence. I hope to have children who do not resort to violence to solve their problems and it would be hypocritical to use violence as a parental technique.

He doubted everything initially but not ultimately. He realised that our sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking. That is the very point I was making. But total scepticism is self-refuting because it is self-destructive. If you reject the value of reasoning you are denying the value of your own conclusion - that you can know nothing - which is a good reason to reject nihilism!

Can you walk me through that a bit more? I don’t quite follow. Are you saying skepticism is self refuting because we cannot properly act in a solipsistic world? When we step out of the intellectual armchair of course we need to assume the world as we see it is real and true or we could very well wind up with your (possibly illusory) skin in (an equally illusory) jail. Besides, there are some things that I think end up stronger for having questioned them; science is a ready example but there are others.

It depends on the religious consensus that human beings should treat one another as members of a family created by God.

I don’t think one needs to resort to God for that. How about simply the fact that other human beings are exactly like us in hopes, dreams, fears, aspirations and pains. That does it for me.

You mean “instructed by the Old Testament”.

Did I miss they day the took the Old Testament out of the Bible?

 

[ThomasToo]

You are mistaken. How do you reconcile “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” with His treatment of the woman caught in adultery? Fulfilment means perfecting the law - which was obviously primitive in some respects. Animal sacrifice is a good example of a custom that Jesus transformed into self-sacrifice - not necessarily by giving one’s life but by loving others.

Interesting biblical tidbit, the eye for an eye is not so much a requirement but a limit. Pre-Mosaic law allowed for much higher penalties for personal injuries such as, for example, taking a life of someone who blinded another.

I don’t quite see how human sacrifice (self or otherwise) is the perfection of animal sacrifice. It always seemed rather barbaric to me but that issue is not germane here.

 

[tonyrey]

You are mistaken. How do you reconcile “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” with His treatment of the woman caught in adultery? Fulfilment means perfecting the law - which was obviously primitive in some respects. Animal sacrifice is a good example of a custom that Jesus transformed into self-sacrifice - not necessarily by giving one’s life but by loving others.

Even that limit is excessive. As for the higher penalties I shall say nothing - to avoid causing uproar in the camp!

I don’t quite see how human sacrifice (self or otherwise) is the perfection of animal sacrifice. It always seemed rather barbaric to me but that issue is not germane here.

Do you think it is barbaric to sacrifice your life if it is the only way to save the lives of others? The issue is germane because it is related to the suspension of the ethical - by choosing to die! The end result is the same as killing oneself. One is either the agent of, or accomplice to, homicide.

 

[ThomasToo]

Do you think it is barbaric to sacrifice your life if it is the only way to save the lives of others? The issue is germane because it is related to the suspension of the ethical - by choosing to die! The end result is the same as killing oneself. One is either the agent of, or accomplice to, homicide.

I think human sacrifice is barbaric, yes. If we were talking about a situation where giving up one’s life were truly the only way to save the lives of others (e.g. a soldier throwing himself on a grenade) we may have an argument but even the Church does not say God was limited so achieving man’s salvation by that act but only that it was necessary in the sense of being best and most fitting. I don’t think we would say the same of a soldier who threw himself on a small bomb whose countdown timer had 20 seconds left if in that time he and his comrades could evacuate the area or put the weapon at a safe distance.

I agree the issue is the same as suicide but my priest always got angry when I said that. I think, however, we are more or less beyond the need for specific examples and ought to be able to discuss the issue itself and not bandy about with what ifs.